Feminist academic organizations: Challenging sexism through collective mobilizing across research, support, and advocacy

This paper examines the establishment of a feminist academic organization, GENMAC (Gender, Markets, and Consumers; genmac.co), serving gender scholars in business schools and related fields. In so doing, it builds on the emerging literature of feminist academic organizations, as situated within feminist organizational studies (FOS). Through a feminist case study and by assessing the reflections of GENMAC\u27s board members, we tell the story of the emergence of GENMAC and detail the tensions the organization encountered as it formally established itself as a feminist organization within the confines of a business school setting, a patriarchal system, and a neoliberal university paradigm. We build on the FOS literature by considering how our organization counters cultures of heightened individualism and builds collective action to challenge sexism through the nexus of research, support, and advocacy pillars of our organization. We demonstrate how, through these actions, our organization challenges hierarchies of knowledge, prioritizes the care and support needed for the day-to-day survival of gender scholars in business schools, and spotlights and challenges structural inequalities and injustices in the academy

A Comparison of Live Counseling With a Web-Based Lifestyle and Medication Intervention to Reduce Coronary Heart Disease Risk: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Most primary care clinicians lack the skills and resources to offer effective lifestyle and medication counseling to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. Thus, effective and feasible CHD prevention programs are needed for typical practice settings

Problematizing fit and survival: transforming the law of requisite variety through complexity misalignment

The law of requisite variety is widely employed in management theorizing and is linked with core strategy themes such as contingency and fit. We reflect upon requisite variety as an archetypal borrowed concept. We contrast its premises with insights from the institutional literature and commitment literature, draw propositions that set boundaries to its applicability, and review the ramifications of what we call “complexity misalignment.” In this way we contradict foundational assumptions of the law, problematize adaptation- and survival-centric views of strategizing, and theorize the role of human agency in variously complex regimes